I’ve recently been running into arguments for and (a few, although very few) against “women-only space”. This means just what it sounds like: only women are allowed in. This demands the question what defines “a woman”. The most recent definition is someone who was born female, raised as a girl, and is currently living as and self-identifying as a women. This erases from the equation MTF transgendered people as well as FTM (who probably have less desire to be included than the first category). This has been in the enews recently because of the Michigan Womyn’s Festival and their request that people who don’t fit the definition of woman simply not attend (so they don’t have to do “skirt checks” or refuse entrance to people). I’m not here to debate the definition of woman. I’m happy to accept that definition as a given for the purposes of the following discussion.
Why do we need to have women only space? There are many answers, some of which I find problematic, but let’s see:
Because We Don’t Want Guys Around
This fits into the baby-shower, bachelorette, coffee klatch (can I say that in English?) mentality. We love our guys. We’re probably married to at least one. But sometimes we like to hang out with the girls. We like to hang out, be girly, gossip, and get sloshed, all without the embarrassment of men hanging over our shoulders. Now, I’m not saying that we don’t ever like doing these things with men, I’m just saying that sometimes, it’s fun to exclude them. I think it can even be healing. I love playing golf with my two (girl) friends. I don’t like golf so much…but I love the getting together, walking around outside, talking, bitching, getting aggressive on balls, and then the 19th hole of appetizers and cocktails.
This kind of women only space can be healing, rejuvenating, and even serve to remind us of what we like about men. We can see this in the men only space of (typically) poker night, bachelor parties, and watching sports on TV (wouldn’t you rather just play? such a confusing phenomenon to me). None of these are things I would deny my husband: we have a couple-friend to whose house we go (as a couple) to play eurogames. Sometimes, only DH goes and only guys are invited. They play the same eurogames, but in a space free of women for the evening. I think that’s great.
This kind of exclusionary space is also akin to family only space, or specific-religion only space, or book group only space. Sometimes, you want to hang out with people who are like you in a specific way. You don’t want any outsiders. Not because you’re afraid of them or don’t like them, just because, not right now. Maybe later, but this is my [blank] time.
Because Men Don’t Want To Be Included
I already used it, but I’m pretty sure that baby showers and bachelorette parties may fall here, too. In fact, sometimes, I don’t want to be included… This is a time when men are welcome but just don’t have any interest in coming along. This happens when my old roommate and I go shopping. Although DH is perfectly happy to hang out with us most days of the week, when we go to IKEA, he’d just rather not be involved.
This may be a misnomer because it’s women only by default, rather than by desire. I think sometimes this is because of stereotypes (like the shopping thing, only he’s experienced it first hand, so it’s no longer a stereotype). Maybe men simply feel uncomfortable when outnumbered too greatly. This kind of self-segregation is also visible in school: the boys hang with the boys and the girls with the girls. There may be one of the other in the group because s/he has more friends there, but very frequently, gender division can be seen with a quick glance at the lunch table.
I don’t think there’s anything wrong with this, unless it’s because of unfounded stereotypes. If men are self-excluding because they assume women’s company will be inane, that’s a time for education. If men are self-excluding because women are going to be talking about breast feeding and the men just don’t feel comfortable discussing that with women they’re not in a relationship with, that’s great.
Because Men Can’t Be Trusted
This is the reason that I find most problematic. It’s the reason that the Michigan Womyn’s Festival was founded on (although they also note the first reason, that there are certain experiences that only women who were raised as girls share). It’s also the reason behind some of the more amusingly secessionist feminists’ arguments.
There’s an assumption that a women only space in this sense is safer than a mixed space. Now, statistically speaking, more men rape women than do women. However, taking men out of the equation for the reason of safety seems like ignoring the problem. If violence against women is such an issue that we are ready to seclude ourselves in a compound with out men, why is it not such an issue that we would speak out against it, call for better punishments, better ways of reporting and investigating, better treatment of victims. Certainly, women are not the only people who have violence done against them. Nor are men the only perpetrators. After all, the response of society to a murder is not to lock the populace away, but to lock the perpetrator away.
Although they would disagree that they have anything in common, I find that the argument that “men are violent” or “men are rapists” seems to be most often asserted by far left feminists or far right conservatives. I’ve only heard it said in my presence by my Muslim office mate, defining why women should wear hijab: “men can’t control themselves”. It is even used by the same people who put on purity dances. Why else would a young adult need her father’s protection? Because the young men she will be dating and going to school with will simply be unable to stop themselves.
One man has a great argument about why he is offended by this kind of thinking. Not only is it offensive to men, it is tied up in the assumption that a rape victim is at fault. After all, she knows that men can’t help themselves when confronted with a woman. The far right says: she should never have gone out without a male family member, dressed modestly. The far left says: she should never have been around men in the first place.
I find that this kind of exclusionary space has at its heart assumptions I am uncomfortable (as a woman) with. One of them is that I will feel better around strange women than around strange men. Now I will admit that being the only woman around strange men is a much more uncomfortable place to be than to be among strange women. But honestly, I would feel most comfortable around mixed strangers. A rape clinic in Vancouver was recently in the news because they denied a position to an MTF transsexual on the basis of a policy of only hiring women. This assumes that raped women only want to interact with women. I don’t doubt that many people would fall under this. But I find the assumption that all women want to interact solely with women in this kind of circumstance problematic, if not paternalistic.
This woman has a great argument against this kind of women-only space in an academic arena.
People who are male are not the source of sexism any more than people who are straight, white and rich are the source of homophobia, racism and capitalism. Neither, are gender issues only the concern of women any more than sexual orientation, race and capitalism only issues for those who are queer, black and working-class. Gender (and class, race and sexuality, etc.) are social issues which affect everyone and which must be addressed by everyone.
hear, hear! Maybe if we stop blaming all men (this includes getting rid of “can’t help themselves” and “boys will be boys” mentalities) we’ll have a chance of solving the issues at hand.
Pandagon has taken this on in a post about rape, trusting men, and why you shouldn’t be paranoid. Meanwhile, there are apologists for not blaming victims. Even AlterNet has a great article outlining not just the problem, but the (possible) solutions:
we must all learn how to defend ourselves and insist that our schools and other public institutions teach all girls and women the same skills and not just for our own safety. Because the most practical way to reduce the risk of rape for all women is to create a culture in which the rapist has to worry that he’ll get hurt.
Japan recently started including a car for women only on rush hour trains because of the epidemic of groping of women on trains. It’s optional, which I think is great, and unfortunately, sounds as though it is necessary. As an interim solution, I think it’s admirable. But I hope that additional actions are being taken to find, expose, and punish the gropers.
So why do we separate ourselves against the perceived enemy rather than educating people, men and women alike, against the pitfalls of this kind of insular thinking? Who knows. But it’s time we stop. Here’s to men who aren’t their cocks, women who trust them, and people of all genders who don’t believe that segregation is the right path.
7 responses so far ↓
1 nee // Mar 16, 2007 at 5:07 pm
“There‚Äôs an assumption that a women only space in this sense is safer than a mixed space.”
I did not think “safer” in a physical sense when you said this. I took it as an emotional sense. There is a certain freedom that both men and women feel when the other gender is not around. There is less pressure, less distraction, and the safe feeling that comes with having this common bond with everyone in a given setting.
2 Miko // Mar 16, 2007 at 8:35 pm
Thank you, nee, for bringing a different perspective. I can agree that there is different emotional safety in different groups, but I’m often more at ease with men…
3 John // Mar 17, 2007 at 7:13 am
Miko, great post on a complex issue. I think context is really important when considering women-only spaces. I encounter this issue periodically as a profeminist male.
I agree with nee’s comment, and think that this is especially true for women who are recovering from abusive or oppressive situations where men dominated. I’ve been in a variety of discussion spaces, and many women are so used to male authority that they grow silent when a man enters. Women’s conversations that focus on sharing of experience often are dampened when interrupted by a male voice speaking authoritatively. I’m not saying that all discussion spaces are characterized in this manner, but I can understand why some women might insist on restricting male access if they’ve been repeatedly burned by it.
My biggest beef is when I’m following a carefully nuanced conversation between feminists online, and (usually) a man enters in attacking feminism in general, as if he’s introducing something completely new. The conversation is ruined (and the guy usually has no investment in the community). I’ve seen this happen again and again.
Miko, I agree that we need to get away narrow gender stereotypes and definitions and I’m one of the biggest advocates of getting away from essentializing what it means to be male and female. At the same time, I recognize the benefit of women-only groups, especially as a first, healing and consciousness-raising step.
4 Mekah Gordon, PhD, L. E. // Mar 17, 2007 at 8:10 am
Women’s Only Space
posted by Miko on March 16th, 2007
“…..getting aggressive on balls”
Hmmmmmm, could this be a subliminal??? LOL!!!
Dear Miko ~
First and foremost, I wish to commend you on your prolific writing, & perspective.
The act of aggression toward women, and men, being Raped, is devastating to mind, body, & soul, regardless of gender.
In the case, which you mentioned, where a Transsexual Woman, [me, being one] wishes to comfort, & possibly council “women” who have been raped, can conceivably be first viewed as ludicrous, and absurd.
However, anyone stating that this Trans Woman, who was born with a penis, or undefined genitalia, pre/post Gender Corrective Surgery, cannot be as sensitive, & caring to the levels at which Genetic Females, might determine as exclusive, in cases of Rape, is just as ludicrous, & absurd.
Rape, is not just a “Woman’s Thing.”
This particular trauma, regardless, experienced by either gender, is abominably & equally devastating.
The statistics concerning the brutality, rape, & murder of Transsexual Men & Woman, are staggering, throughout the world.
Stereotypical branding, within society, specifically between Men & Women, needs to be reevaluated, in this 21st Century, simply due to the advancements in Gender Science, & Human Genome anomaly’s, in nature.
It is my professional opinion, and daily observation, that as human beings, we tend to slip, too often, into those already charted waters, of “Carved in Stone, Facts” dividing the sexes, still wearing blinders.
My advice, to all those still spinning their wheels, in the past, is to take a deep breadth, “change those tireless tires” before they leave you stranded, in the dust of antiquated thinking.
Peace, Equality, & Solidarity ~
~Mekah Gordon, Ph.D., L. E.~
Advocate/Activist - Consummate Optimist & Visionary - Educator/Consultant - Freelance Writer-TG Issues - Regional Editor of Santa Fe/For The Normal Heart Newspaper - Pioneering, Frontier Renaissance Woman
Founder/Director ~
S. U. R. E. Foundation®
22 Juego Rd.
Santa Fe, NM 87508-4298
505-466-4277
SUREducation@aol.com
*In order to achieve the same rights, without compromise, there are NO other options, than Unequivocal Equality.
~ Mekah Gordon
*The word, “Tolerance,” no matter how you bend it, twist it, or turn it inside out,”Reeks” of Discrimination.
“RESPECT,” however, eradicates implicitness for bigotry, hate, prejudice, and judgment.
~Mekah Gordon
*No One on this planet, should ever have, or be granted the power, right, nor stand in judgment, of anyone’s Basic Human Civil Rights, by enforcing through Constitutional Decree, or otherwise, whom one should love, and marry, NO ONE!
~Mekah Gordon
*It’s the Tenacity, Persistence, Fortitude, & Faith, that’s perennial, in those of us, who refuse to give up, in our pursuit for Equality, & Basic Human Civil Rights.
~Mekah Gordon
*Transitionally Speaking: Quotes, From a Pioneering, Frontier Renaissance Woman
© 2007 Mekah Gordon, All Rights Reserved
5 Elaine Frei // Mar 17, 2007 at 2:51 pm
I’ve been thinking about this a lot since I read your post yesterday, miko, and the main conclusion that I’ve come to is that the whole issue illustrates just how far we haven’t come as a society, even as a species. Of course, most of us sometimes want to be with those with whom we most closely identify, be it our gender group, our family group, our religious group, or our ethnic group. It isn’t abnormal or unhealthy, and in most categories (the aforementioned book club, for example) it doesn’t eve begin to be an issue.
But when the group is gender based, ethnically defined - and sometimes when it is religiously defined - there starts to be questions, insinuations, even accusations sometimes. You are being exclusionary, or you’re plotting something, or…who knows what. Whatever else, the assumption is that the gathering has some agenda or ulterior motive, which is just silly in the vast majority of cases.
On the other hand (you knew there would be one of these, didn’t you?
), it can be jarring to be told you aren’t welcome because you aren’t the right gender, the right ethnicity, the right religion. In the past, those sorts of exclusions have been used to keep out-groups from participation and power in society. Which is, I suppose, where the suspicions of even the run-of-the-mill “girls’ night out” or “boys’ night out” come from.
I don’t think diversity has to be enforced one hundred percent of the time in order to have a diverse society. Having said that, however, the policy of the Festival that transgender MTF’s be excluded bothers me a lot. From what I understand of transgender issues, both from reading and from classes I’ve taken as well as from transgendered individuals I’ve known in various stages of their transformations, they often have never identified as the gender their genetic information says they are. That’s hard enough to deal with, without someone telling them, often after they’ve completed their transformation, that they are really still the gender of their birth no matter what. I would expect that from certain strains of fundamentalist religion. I wouldn’t expect it from feminists. Perhaps I would be wrong in that, but it disappoints me, as it always does when one group claiming discrimination against themselves chooses to discriminate against another group.
I’ve also got to say that I probably wouldn’t feel that comfortable around a group that feels that “womyn’s space” has to be “preserved” even against five year old boys. That is just absurd. They want, presumably, to raise boys who respect women as equals. Sending them off and segregating them from women is not likely to do that, in my opinion.
6 Miko // Mar 17, 2007 at 6:58 pm
Dr. Gordon: no, the “aggressive on balls” was totally intended
Thank you for your reply. I agree wholeheartedly that rape is not exclusively a female problem. I guess that’s part of why I’m confused that only women seem to be allowed to deal with it. As Elaine says, it’s just proof of how much farther we have to evolve.
7 Miko // Aug 6, 2007 at 9:31 am
More discussion of segregation trains, now being proposed in NYC.
Leave a Comment